2. Circumstances unfavorable to the judgment on the grounds of appeal: The Defendant obtained a loan of KRW 25.6 million from the injured party, and purchased a motor vehicle as a security, and set up a mortgage on the said motor vehicle at the claim price of KRW 12.8 million against the injured party; however, even if an installment of the loan was paid once more than nine months and the third party was in arrears, it is not good that the Defendant interfered with the injured party’s exercise of mortgage by allowing the third party to use the said motor vehicle.

The defendant does not cooperate with the recovery of the above car by the injured party and does not pay the above loan, and leaves the country during the original trial and is still missing.

The defendant recognized the crime of this case at the court below.

There is no power on the defendant.

The sentencing criteria of the crime obstructing the exercise of rights were not applied to this case, as the case was indicted on April 21, 2015, and the sentencing criteria of the crime obstructing the exercise of rights were enforced on July 1, 2015.

Considering B, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unhued and unfair.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.